It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 66
33
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Well well you really need to learn to read my friend.

From the magazine article you posted claiming it was from before 1969...


lol - I think you need to learn to read. I said this one was from 1969. On the 2nd page posted on james-paul-mccartney.150m.com...
under "STAFF," it says "Copyright 1969." Look it up.

This is the one that was from 1967





posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

according to Mark Lewisohn book about the Beatles' recording sessions, it never happened that in November 1966 Paul McCartney left in rage a session and subsequently had a car accident.

Some of us don't believe the "car accident" story.


But let's admit Paul died in those days: there would not have been time to find a lookalike and have him undergo plastic surgery and teach him to play and sing and behave like Paul in 2 weeks.

I'm sure they had the double "in training" before they took Paul out. This is one reason why I don't believe it was an accident.


Surely he did not die in November 1966.

Agreed.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

I have mentioned this before, I absolutely believe it can be done - which is the real issue isn't it? Because if this is true of Paul McCartney, what are the ramifications?

They are huge. If they can get away w/ it w/ Paul, a guy who was ogled by countless girls, then it'd be quite easy to do w/ ugly, old politicians - no one is scrutinizing their looks.


that does not mean they aren't replacing people or that they don't have the technology to do so.

Manchurian Candidate, I suggest, is only the tip of the iceberg.

How right you are. It is like mass brainwashing. See how easy it is to convince people of something? Just present it to them as "official," & most people will believe it. Another twisty-turn this takes is into stepfording people. Who knows if the double is just acting the part, or if he's been programmed into believing he really is the original person.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Not in the post I replied to you didn't. It seems to me you posted it in reply to another poster who asked about articles from before 1969.

Also that other article we discussed already, do you have a short memory? That article had nothing to do with what ultimately became the PID hoax, that wasn't even known about until 1969. It was simply a mistake by an over zealous reporter/editor/newspaper, and was printed before it was verified. The press do that carp all the time.


Helsinki - Finland's largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat issued an apology Tuesday after its online site wrongly published a report that four-time Olympic champion Lasse Viren had died. "This really was a terrible mistake, no matter which way you look at it," Roosa Merilainen, editor of the Helsingin Sanomat said in the online edition... Like US author Mark Twain, whose death was also reported prematurely, Viren apparently took the events in his stride and called the newspaper himself when he heard about the article....

Full Story

You're trying to make connections that just don't stand up to scrutiny.
You should do your own research instead of simply excepting some Else's. That was your only 'evidence' for the hoax being known before 1969, you have nothing left.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by freshwreckage
Does it really matter? Seriously.


Only if you think it matters that someone was likely murdered & replaced, & someone else has been pretending to be him for over 40 yrs. Personally, I find it rather disturbing.


Why commit a crime and spend lots of money on the replacement; why not just kick him out of the band and get Klaus in? (John was happy enough to replace George with Eric in '69.).

And how come Paul's replacement was able to remind John of the words to "I lost my little girl" in '69?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen


Why commit a crime and spend lots of money on the replacement; why not just kick him out of the band and get Klaus in?


B/c Paul was popular. They exploit a person's popularity & influence.

Aug 1966 v Dec 1966. Different effects highlight the differences...




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Faulconandsnob, your comparisons ALWAYS fullfil certain aspects:

- they are taken from extra poor quality video stills
- taken from different angles


Funny, how Paul always looked the same, if you try to avoid to handpick different angels, distances and pictures quality..


Look at Paul, that's pretty normal aging:


(20 or 30 years between those pics..)


Amazing how perfectly their faces match up..









Funny how their facial features are exactly the same:





same guy, 2 years apart:




same guy, 4 years apart:





Paul is alive.. that's it folks!



[edit on 13-8-2009 by diabolo1]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by diabolo1]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by diabolo1]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Hello everyone. This is my first post here, although I have been lurking and reading for a while.

I made it through the whole thread. I know, I know. I was bored at work.


I have looked at the pics and read both sides' arguments. I have leaned to one side, then the other.

I also looked at it from a perspective which took into accounts from both arguments and thought about another possible situation.

There are physical changes, but they look like plastic surgery refinements. Plastic surgery wasn't as common or advanced back then, but it was done. If anyone could have afforded the cost of the best offered and buying silence, a member of the arguably most famous band in the world could.

What I see in the pics is a guy who had some plastic surgery done to refine his face and make it more manly. I also see a man who aged for whatever reason, but it was the sixties and we all know people lived and partied hard in that era.

Height: People can grow for an unknown amount of years. Some people also shrink in their later years. Camera angles, lighting, and other factors can change perspective. On a personal experience note, I grew well into my twenties. From 20 to 30 my height changed by over a half foot.

Eye Color: Again, camera angles, lighting, and other factors can change the perceived color. Hazel eyes can seem to change color right before our seemingly static eyes. Green, blue, violet, grey, lavender, orange, yellow, light brown, and combinations in between happen with those types of eyes.

Clues in Albums: I looked at the clues from another viewpoint, such as one of a divorce or broken friendship. Paul would not be the first person changed by fame, if that happened to him. Imho, he projected an adorable, humble vibe in his early days and later, an arrogant vibe. He seemed to project a forcefully confident air later on. If the other band mates were leaving clues to Paul's death, they could have meant it metaphorically. Their friend was not the same person anymore and this guy next to them was someone they neither liked nor enjoyed working with. Their Paul was dead and they were saddened by the death of him.

I'm not saying he is or is not Paul or Faul or anyone else, just adding another possibility.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Some of us don't believe the "car accident" story.

Surely he did not die in November 1966.

Agreed.

Well would you make up your mind what it is you believe then --- we're just chasing shadows here...

(and please don't answer in the form of a load of photos of Paul with different expressions, different angles, etc.)



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
OMG, they got John too!



Ignore the picture on the right for now, just look at the pic of John on the left, and the pic of his replacement in the middle:

The impostor has got such a beak! His nose is much wider than John's and has a definite hook at the end.
Now look at the shape of his chin and jaw -- no comparison at all, John had a round face.
Also, the impostor's eyebrow looks decidedly fake, his ears are much higher, and his cranium is larger than John's.

Finally, unlike John, his replacement dresses in an effeminate way -- see the pic on the right.

Case closed ;-)



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by seaofgreen
 


Hehe be careful, snowjob believes all the Beatles were replaced by illuminati reptilians from the 4th dimension.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Some of us don't believe the "car accident" story.

Surely he did not die in November 1966.

Agreed.

Well would you make up your mind what it is you believe then --- we're just chasing shadows here...


I believe Paul was murdered before Nov. 1966 - end of Aug or in Sept. He'd def been replaced by Nov, b/c Faul went w/ Mal Evans to Kenya. That wasn't Paul.


(and please don't answer in the form of a load of photos of Paul with different expressions, different angles, etc.)

Which ones would those be? Most comps I use show Paul & Faul in very similar expressions & angles. Like this one:



A person should look like himself from difft angles & w/ different lighting & expressions. And sure enough, Paul looks like Paul & Faul looks like Faul:






[edit on 13-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ethera
There are physical changes, but they look like plastic surgery refinements.

Paul went from more refined to less refined. "Manly" is subjective. I don't know why Paul would want to make himself less attractive... B/c the girls were certainly not impressed w/ his looks post 1966.




Height:

Paul's "growth spurt" just happened to coincide w/ a change in eye color & change in facial features. To account for those changes, he would have had to have had a series of extensive & painful surgeries, but the requisite scars aren't to be seen. Neither was his singing career impacted, which is also extremely unlikely. This is according to forensic scientists, but the way.


Eye Color:

Except Paul's always looked brown or light brown, while Faul clearly has green eyes. Also, it's been documented that Paul had brown eyes, although he himself said hazel. Either way, that's not green. My eyes are green, & they will look blue, but they would never in a million years look brown or hazel. I understand no one wants to believe Paul was replaced, but I just don't think you can explain this away very easily:




[edit on 13-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by seaofgreen
 


Hehe be careful, snowjob believes all the Beatles were replaced by illuminati reptilians from the 4th dimension.


Apologies, but after banging my head up against a brick wall for several weeks, I felt a little light relief was in order. Perhaps not surprisingly, snowjob doesn't seem to get the joke and quietly sweeps it under the carpet. Let's have a few more pics of Paul with different expressions/lighting/hair-styles shall we...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by seaofgreen
 


No need to apologize mate I was just kidding also.

Wow I think snowjob is on to something, look how brown his eyes look in that monochromatic photograph!

I'll bet snowjab that the suit he's wearing isn't black...


And how can someone look at his eyes as much as snowjib seems to and not notice the shape of his eyes look the same in every picture of him? Again that's not something that can really be changed without reshaping the skull itself.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Why commit a crime and spend lots of money on the replacement; why not just kick him out of the band and get Klaus in? (John was happy enough to replace George with Eric in '69.).


Well to be fair George did replace himself with Eric in 1968.

Georges guitar wouldn't weep.


Eric also stole Georges wife, who he met during filming of 'A Hard Days Night', Pattie Boyd, who was replaced by Olivia Arias.

But anyway back at the Lindisfarm, seems to be a lot of replacing going on here...
Except Paul of course.

Wonderful Tonight?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Gotta tell ya, being a huge music fan, and stumbling upon this site and post, back in July, It caused me to signup at ATS. I read everything and looked at all the videos and pics, I am really impressed on both sides of the argument of PID and always thinking that when it comes to conspiracy theories, there is always some truth in them, somewhere. The time you guys put into the research is impressive. I have been back and forth when it comes to make a set conclusion. I lean more toward Paul being alive, but there are two things that stick out to me on PID, and that is his nose, and the change in The Beatles, music change and appearance's. Good post guys I have enjoyed it.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Locutis
 


The change in musical style is easy to explain. They stopped touring.
They became a 'studio band'. Instead of touring they spent all their time in the studio playing with the equipment. Also at this time Paul and John both bought 4 track tape machines to use at home. That is how Paul came up with the backwards stuff and tape loops, which he used on 'Tomorrow Never Knows'.

At the EMI studio they recorded at they were not allowed to touch the equipment, or even go into the control room before the mid 60's. EMI were very strict. The Beatles managed to break that tradition when they became a studio band in late '66.

Also by this time, 1966-67, they were heavily into the 420, which you might, or might not know, does a lot for your creativity. Then of course came the Acid Queen and we got 'Strawberry Fields'. All their earlier songs were written and recorded on speed, not meth but real speed pills like 'dexies'. They had been using speed since their days in Hamburg. That's why a lot of their earlier songs were fast lol.

Also they had been to America, they had got into Dylan (who turned them onto 420) and other American music. In the 60's there wasn't so much exposure of American music in England.

The suits went when Epstein died. Before he died they did everything he told them to, afterwords not so much. They went to India in the hope they could channel Epstein from the beyond and ask him what they should do. Most people don't realize how much George Martin was responsible for the Beatles sound. He arranged a lot of the songs, and played piano and organ. He did most of the orchestral scores. He shaped their sound into what it became.

Really they were just following the fashion of the time. In England it looked they were leading that fashion, but the reality was the hippie/psychedelic scene had started in the US as early as '63. The Ken Kesey bus 'Further' was painted psychedelic in '64, when the Beatles were still black & white, in an alleyway warehouse half a block from where I live, if you can believe that. The Beatles just copied what they saw in California. John lived in San Francisco for a while at the Jefferson Airplanes house by Golden Gate Park. He signed his name on the sidewalk, when the concrete was wet, you can still see it.

Anyway I'm rambling, didn't mean to write so much but I have so it will stay.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Thanks for the info, makes sense.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by diabolo1
Faulconandsnob, your comparisons ALWAYS fullfil certain aspects:

- they are taken from extra poor quality video stills
- taken from different angles


Funny, how Paul always looked the same, if you try to avoid to handpick different angels, distances and pictures quality..


Look at Paul, that's pretty normal aging:


(20 or 30 years between those pics..)


Amazing how perfectly their faces match up..









Funny how their facial features are exactly the same:





same guy, 2 years apart:




same guy, 4 years apart:





Paul is alive.. that's it folks!


Hi Diabolo, as always you managed to show facts how they are.
Same guy. No plots, no murders, no lookalikes, no phototampering.
He is aging, as all people do. But he is the same person.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join